Johnathan E. Mansfield, Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC, Portland, OR. Andrew D. Weiss, Marc A. Fenster, Russ, August & Kabat, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff
Daniel P. Larsen, Ater Wynne, LLP, Portland, OR. L. Rex Sears, Workman Nydegger, Salt Lake City, UT.Sterling A. Brennan, Workman Nydegger Irvine, CA, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION & ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff Tranxition, Inc. brings this patent infringement action against Defendant Novell, Inc. Defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiff also moves to compel Defendant to participate in discovery. I deny Defendant's motion to dismiss and grant Plaintiff's motion to compel.
Plaintiff Tranxition was "founded to address the problem of migrating a computer personality' ( i.e., the custom settings, files, etc. that users set on their computer) to another computer." First Am. Compl. ("FAC") ¶ 6. It is the owner of United States Patent No. 6, 728, 877 ("877 patent"), titled "Method and System for Automatically Transitioning [o]f Configuration Settings Among Computer Systems." Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff also owns United States Patent No. 7, 346, 766 ("766 patent"), which is also titled "Method and System for Automatically Transitioning [o]f Configuration Settings Among Computer Systems." Id.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Novell directly and indirectly infringes both the 877 and 766 patents with Novell's "ZENWorks Personality Migration (or Migration Assistant)" software and computer systems using that software. FAC ¶¶ 8-10, 15-17. Plaintiff seeks damages and a permanent injunction for the alleged infringement. Id. at 8.
I. Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Personal jurisdiction in patent cases is decided under Federal Circuit law rather than the law of the regional circuit in which the case arose. Akro Corp. v. Luker , 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1995). If the parties have not conducted discovery, a plaintiff need "only to make a prima facie showing that the defendants were subject to personal jurisdiction." Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus., Inc. , 326 F.3d 1194, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For purposes of a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court construes the pleadings and affidavits in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Graphic Controls Corp. v. Utah Med. Products, Inc. , 149 F.3d 1382, 1383 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
II. Failure to State a Claim
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim may be granted only when there is no cognizable legal theory to support the claim or when the complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to state a facially plausible claim for relief. Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc. , 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010). In evaluating the sufficiency of a complaint's factual allegations, the court must accept all material facts alleged in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co. , 668 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). However, the court need not accept conclusory allegations as truthful. Holden v. Hagopian , 978 F.2d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1992).
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) will be granted if plaintiff alleges the "grounds" of his "entitlement to relief" with nothing "more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action[.]" Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, ... on the assumption that all the allegations in the complaint are true (even if doubtful in fact)[.]" Id . (citations and footnote omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss, the complaint "must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face[, ]" meaning "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation omitted). Additionally, "only a complaint that states a plausible claim for relief survives a motion to dismiss." Id . The ...